Dear Friend,
Thank you for writing with your excellent question.
Those scripture verses in the notes of the NIV are not "missing", but purposely put
in the footnotes as they were not found in the earliest manuscripts. Below
is some of the information. We have in-depth and extensive resources available online that provide detailed information about the translation process and background of the New International Version.
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/4.php
Blessings, Marilynne for the folks at IBS
In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek
text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to
work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial
manuscripts and papyri. Isn't the King James Version Good Enough?
(The KJV and the NIV Compared)
Edwin H. Palmer
I love the King James Version. I was converted under it, my first memory
verses were taken from it, and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses
the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was
translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in
the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted,
sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used
translation.
The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for
two reasons: (1) it adds to the Word of God and (2) it has now-obscure and
misleading renderings of God's Word.
Additions to the Word of God
The KJV translators did not intend to add to the Word of God. They did their
best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament books. These were very late copies dating
from a thousand (!) years after the New Testament was written. In a few
sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on
the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been
in the Greek!
Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been
preserved and were subsequently discovered-in fact, more than five thousand
of them. Some were very old indeed, dating back much farther than the
relatively few the KJV translators used. Some of the Greek manuscripts date
back to the four hundreds and three hundreds-even to abouta.d. 200. These
ancient manuscripts were more reliable and accurate, not being corrupted by
errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the
late manuscripts used by the KJV.
As a result we know today, with a high degree of accuracy, what was in the
original writings.1 Uncertainty now exists in only an infinitesimally small
part of the New Testament (the difference would be comparable to that
between "don't" and "do not" or "street" and "way").
Some examples of verses that the KJV added to the Word of God, even though
it did so unwittingly and in all innocence, are Matthew 17:2l; 18:11; 23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37;
15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7b-8a. In addition many phrases
and words were also added.
A striking case of where the KJV, following bad Greek copies of the original
text, changed the original is John 1:18. The KJV says: "No man hath seen God
at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of
those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But,
without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered
what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus "Son." Using the
archaic language of the KJV, the verse should read: "No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: "No one has
ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side,
has made him known" (NIV).
Some Evangelicals get concerned because some modern paraphrases do not
really give us the Word of God. They distort, alter, and revise it. This
concern is justified because we believe that the Bible is the very Word of
God, and we do not want any paraphrases to change what the Holy Spirit
inspired. Yet some of these same evangelicals calmly go on reading the KJV,
which in many places has added to (and so changed) God's very words. Such a
practice is unfortunate.
Obscure and Misleading Renderings
The KJV has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. This is so
in part because some English words have changed their meaning since 1611. It
is bad enough when translators have available only inferior copies of the
original text of God's Word, but when, in addition to that, their
translation of the Hebrew and Greek conveys erroneous ideas, the problem is
compounded.
This is not to say that the KJV did not do an admirable job-for its time. We
should thank God for it. Many of the examples of erroneous translations
given below were not errors in 1611 when the KJV was published, but they are
definitely errors today in view of the current meanings of those words.
(see Web site http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/index.php)
response to the "missing verses in NIV"
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Chris1984, Sep 24, 2003.
-
PastorGreg MemberSite Supporter
Interesting that this article does not note that of the 5,000+ manuscripts discovered, over 90% agree with those from which the KJV was translated. The article criticizes the KJV because the translators only had 6 Greek manuscripts. The footnote in my NIV in the middle of Mark 16 says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." Sounds like overwhwelming manuscript evidence in the light of 5,000+. 6 is not enough to be accurate, but 2 that change what had been accepted as God's Word for 1,800 years are accurate? Where is the intellectual honesty here?
Got to grant you the obscure words, though.
For example:
Acclamation vs. voice in II Chron.15:14
Alcove vs. little chamber in Ez. 40:13
Blunted vs. cut in pieces in Ps. 58:7
Colonnade vs. porch in I Kings 7:6
Fomenting vs. speaking in Is. 59:13
Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
and hundreds more. Of course, in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV. ;) -
Appreciate the simple and straightfoward presentation (and link).
Sadly, those who accept the KJV as "perfect" cannot let it stand. Be prepared for some flak! :rolleyes: -
I look up one at random:
Pastor Greg: "Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
... in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV."
While "red" is certainly simpler than
"porphyry", it is also incorrect.
Porphyry is a purplish stone.
And, if one uses the REAL King James
Verson (KJV), the one authorized version
actually authorized by King James,
one reads in the sidenote of
Easter 1:6:
Or, of perhpyre
Hello, can you spell KJBO deception?
This really upsets me.
Don't people bother to check the
REAL KJV of 1611 and not the
Modern Version (MV) KJV1769? :mad:
God bless
[ September 24, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ] -
NIV -- 5,000 MSS? Is that true?
John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "
John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."
2 verses on NIV contradict the doctrine of Jesus. Therefore ask yourself, "Is NIV obscure?
-
-
Originally posted by Askjo:
NIV -- 5,000 MSS? Is that true?Click to expand...
Ok, let's see, how many MSS support the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge of these MSS, how percent of MSS agreeing with the KJV?Click to expand...
Well, you got the BIG problem concerning the doctrine of Jesus on NIV. Look at 2 verses in the NIV. (Example)
John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "
John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."
2 verses on NIV contradict the doctrine of Jesus. Therefore ask yourself, "Is NIV obscure?Click to expand...
John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:
Hmmmm ... Let's study this a minute ... Yes the KJV has the exact same contradiction of hte doctrine of Christ. So are you prepared to stand by your attack on God's word? Or will you, having been shown the error of your way repent of your attack on God's word?
Tell me, how would you solve some problems on these passages that you stated they added in the KJV? Be honest!Click to expand...
Due to your knowledge, why are these passages found in massive MSS where NIV negated?Click to expand...
Who beget God? Do you mean that God beget God? Do you deny Jesus is God's begotten Son? [/b]Click to expand...
[ September 25, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ] -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The point is that the NIV uses all of them. The KJV uses a scant minority, less than 1/10 of 1%.Click to expand...
In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.Click to expand...
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:
Hmmmm ... Let's study this a minute ... Yes the KJV has the exact same contradiction of hte doctrine of Christ.Click to expand...
Ues a modern version, which is what I do.Click to expand...
Because they were copied from the wrong manuscripts. 1000 copies of an error does not mean it is right. No matter how many times the error is copied, it is still wrong. That is why some of these passages are found in a lot of manuscripts.Click to expand...
Knowing the meaning of monogenes would help here. The word means "unique" or "one of a kind." Jesus, the word, is the unique or only God. He is not some secondary God or created God. He is teh only God. This is the most powerful passage in Scripture to refute the JWs, but you cannot do it from a a KJV. You have to use a modern version to get this explicity testimony to the deity of Christ.Click to expand... -
In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.Click to expand...
-
Originally posted by AV Defender:
there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18;! Thessalonians 1:6,3:3,2:13;Hebrews 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Philippians 1:8;how do you account for that??Click to expand...
Maybe you mean the "New American Standard BIBLE in which case we will need your source and will have to do some homework. -
Strong followed the KJV error that was based on the Vulgate. The Vulgate mistranslated monogenes as unigenitus--a false cognate based on an etymological misread. Instead of mono=uni and genes=genitus therefore both mean sole+begotten, it was mono=one + genes=kind. Gennao is the root of one of the words rendered (begotten vs. kind), but not the other.
Of course, this will mean nothing to a KJVO, but everyone else should recognize what a great witnessing tool the correct translation is when evangelizing JWs and Muslims. -
Excluding the disputed passages referring to Jesus, every appearance of 'monogenes' in the NT is a reference to begotten offspring. Is this merely coincidence?
Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Luke 7:12
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
Luke 8:42
For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.
Luke 9:38
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.
When referring to the Father, monogenes is never used, but only with the Son. Another coincidence? Or perhaps Jesus is unique and one of the kind, but not so the Father? The NIV messed this one up big time. I thank God for my trustworthy King James Bible! -
Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Strong followed the KJV error that was based on the Vulgate. The Vulgate mistranslated monogenes as unigenitus--a false cognate based on an etymological misread. Instead of mono=uni and genes=genitus therefore both mean sole+begotten, it was mono=one + genes=kind. Gennao is the root of one of the words rendered (begotten vs. kind), but not the other.Click to expand...
"monogenes = only-born, i.e. sole:-- only (begotten, child)."
"mono = only."
"genes = beget, be born." GenEs is from the word, GennaO which mean to "be begotten."
The full word, "monogenEs" means "only begotten" that the KJV translated from the TR Greek. -
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The point is that the NIV uses all of them. The KJV uses a scant minority, less than 1/10 of 1%.
Click to expand...
In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.Click to expand...
Witness and record are not same meaning. No contradiction!Click to expand...
This is a place where you have listened to false teachers and believed them without bothering to check what God actually said.
As for the KJV having verses with no manuscript support, here are some examples: Isa 13:15; Rev 17:8; Rev 16:5. There are some others but that will keep you busy for a while.
You use them because they are corrupted.Click to expand...
You asked what a person should do with the added verses in teh KJV. I said use a modern version where these verses were not added.
Did God errorly and wrongly preserve His Word in these MSS?Click to expand...
Strong's Concordance would not agree with you concerning "monogenes."Click to expand... -
Originally posted by AV Defender:
but bear in mind,there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18Click to expand... -
Originally posted by AV Defender:
...but bear in mind,there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in ...Thessalonians 1:6,Click to expand...
NASB
You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit,
KJV
And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:
In case you are stumbling over "followers" vs. imitators:
Strong's Number: 3402 Browse Lexicon
Original Word
mimhthvß from (3401)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Mimetes 4:659,594
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mim-ay-tace' Noun Masculine
Definition
an imitator
King James Word Usage - Total: 7
follower 7
Once again, are the NASB and the KJV in error here or do they both have support? -
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Get real :( the same
problem exists in the KJV1769. But KJBOs
really do have problems, for they have
NO OTHER STANDARD to turn to.
I, an honest modern versionist, have
multiple standards which to turn to.
I don't even have to turn to the Greek
(which i can't read anyway )Click to expand...
The KJBO comic book philosophy is bankrupt,
producing phariseeism.
In fact, some KJBOs even go so far as
to be in total lie: prefering the KJV1769
(a modern version) over the KJB1611
(you know, the version authorized by
King James). Yes, some do need to have
a reality check.
Meanwhile, the basic doctrine of Jesus
stands undisturbed.Click to expand...
You said a mouthfull. . . of nothing.
Show me how I am a pharasee. "Get me a labrador and I'll retrieve it."
Lacy -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Except both of these are true. You should know this. The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not.Click to expand...
Example:
1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?
No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not.Click to expand...
Example:
1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript? </font>[/QUOTE] Papyrus 72 is one out of many. Considering something does not mean that it gets selected. It means that different things are compared with the one that appears most likely to be original is selected.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts.Click to expand...
God did not perfectly preserve the exact wording of the originals. That is so obvious only an idiot or the willfully ignorant could miss it. This fact is testified to by over 5000 Greek mss that all differ from one another.
God's Word, the substance of His communication in the originals, is perfectly preserved. This fact is also testified to by over 5000 Greek mss and the fact that the faithful translations we have today teach the same doctrines and message. -
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Except both of these are true. You should know this. The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not.Click to expand...
Example:
1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?
No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts.Click to expand...